But the times have changed. For a couple of years, he has been the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the main German government’s climate protection adviser. What he has just said for Spiegel, in

is just breathtaking and it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany. A few rotten steps in the hierarchy is enough for a loon to get to the very top. He is proposing the creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing. Let us allow him to speak:

Humankind has to limit itself to emit only fixed amount of carbon into the atmosphere until 2050. […] Because the industrialized nations have already exceeded their quotas if you take into account past emissions. […] With the current output you see that Germany, the US and other industrialized nations have either already used up their permissible quota, or will do so within the next few years. […]

The industrialized nations are facing CO2 insolvency. This means that they have to notch up their efforts to reduce climate change, otherwise they will use up the CO2 budget actually designated to poorer countries and future generations.

Question: So industrialized nations would have to pay massive sums of money?

Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world’s population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world. It would, however, have to be ensured that the poorer nations use the money for the proposes it is intended — namely to help them to develop a greener economy.

Of course, Schellnhuber is not the first hardcore nutcase of this kind who has been saying such things, pretending that he is oh so smart. Many of you may remember Richard Feynman’s popular book, Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman, where he also described a crazy “interdisciplinary” conference where a similar “thinker” has been proposing the same “reparations” paid to the poor countries, based on the same assumptions that Mr Schellnhuber has used.

In order for me to save some time, let me just copy Feynman’s entertaining description of the crazy conference he attended in the 1950s. The amount and basic types of pompous fools haven’t changed: they have just taken over many institutions that apparently include the German government:

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we’re all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.

The next day one of the guys in our group said, “I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference.”

I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries — that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to calm me down. “Look,” she said, “you’re shaking! You’ve gone absolutely nuts! Just take it easy, and don’t take it so seriously. Back away a minute and look at what it is.” So I thought about the conference, how crazy it was, and it wasn’t so bad. But if someone were to ask me to participate in something like that again, I’d shy away from it like mad — I mean zero! No! Absolutely not! And I still get invitations for this kind of thing today.

When it came time to evaluate the conference at the end, the others told how much they got out of it, how successful it was, and so on. When they asked me, I said, “This conference was worse than a Rorschach test: There’s a meaningless inkblot, and the others ask you what you think you see, but when you tell them, they start arguing with you!”

Even worse, at the end of the conference they were going to have another meeting, but this time the public would come, and the guy in charge of our group has the nerve to say that since we’ve worked out so much, there won’t be any time for public discussion, so we’ll just tell the public all the things we’ve worked out. My eyes bugged out: I didn’t think we had worked out a damn thing!

Finally, when we were discussing the question of whether we had developed a way of having a dialogue among people of different disciplines — our second basic “problem” — I said that I noticed something interesting. Each of us talked about what we thought the “ethics of equality” was, from our own point of view, without paying any attention to the other guy’s point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the way to understand ethical problems is to look historically at how they evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the way to do it is to see how in fact people actually act in different situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always referring to “the fragmentation of knowledge”; and I, as a scientist, proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo’s techniques for experiments; and so on. “So, in my opinion,” I said, “we had no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!”

Of course I was attacked, from all around. “Don’t you think that order can come from chaos?”

“Uh, well, as a general principle, or…” I didn’t understand what to do with a question like “Can order come from chaos?” Yes, no, what of it?

There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset. I’m not going to get upset like that again, so I won’t participate in interdisciplinary conferences any more.

Feynman’s book continues with a story involving the young rabbis whose main concern was whether electricity was fire.

I wonder how Feynman would feel if he had to be talking to not just a few nuts of this kind but e.g. to 2,500 similar nuts who would be moreover described by the media as good scientists, if not the best ones in the world. ;-)

Sorry to bring in a hard dose of reality, but the Globalists beat the Warmists to the piggy bank.
There isn’t a whole lot left. Pre-emptied.
Shipped off the wealth to offshore accounts and the not-so-free world.
The West is going to be hard pressed to rebuild shattered economies, let alone pay vast royalty sums to the underdeveloped world.
Have you tried Hu Jintao lately?

Dudes, I read the website of the magazin “Der Spiegel” everday. You could fill a own blog with their ridicolous stories about climate change. It is a total propaganda newspaper concerning this topic. Schellnhuber and his colleague Rahmstorf are very busy in touting alarmism, they are in the newspaper regularly and they have their own blogs. The PIK is an institute only for propaganda, it is founded only for this purpose.

That’s why whole Germany is filled with this ugly windmills and solar panels. Literally billions of Euros are wasted with this.

The absurdity of the “everyone must have the same” argument is illustrated by the essential follow-up question: “what then?”

For a nanosecond on one glorious day everyone will have the same. No one can tell how much or how little everyone will have, although we can be sure that those who organise it will be protected from all deprivation. But what then?

I know what I’d do with my share. I’d make sure a pack of cards was included in my allotment of goodies and I’d start a game of poker. Not with other serious poker players, but with people who have never played but now think they are rich because they have the same as Bill Gates. I’d play Omaha High-Low to make it really difficult for the newcomers. I can’t guarantee it but I’d be pretty sure that by the end of the evening I’d have more than Bill Gates and they’d have less. But what then?

And what then for those who grow extra vegetables in their gardens and sell them to their neighbours who prefer not to bother? And what then for someone who makes a batch of iced lemonade on a hot day and sells it to weary passers-by? And what then for every field of commerce the world has ever known?

How are things to stay equal for longer than the nanosecond at which the World Government decrees what everyone shall have? It is impossible without the outlawing and suppression of individual enterprise. That would be to fight against an essential part of human nature. Indeed, the point goes further. The very process recognises that human enterprise has allowed some to have more than others. Why do these cretins believe that the process that resulted in inequality will not be repeated? After all that process was not a gift from government that can be withdrawn just as it was granted. It was the result of lots of little people doing what came naturally and making the most of their circumstances.

There is only one way for the poor countries to catch up. It is for them to play the same game on a level playing field. Provide things of a quality and at a price that people will buy and you move up. It requires us to remove all trade barriers and let those countries that have made the effort show what they can do. If they can do it, we must up our game to compete. If they can’t, they won’t sell anything and will have to up their game.

Yes, there is a potential down side. If we can’t up our game we suffer. But history shows that we can and always have been able to up our game. The same is now being seen particularly in India but also in some African countries. For example, Kenya’s vegetable growers produce vast amounts for the western market. No hand-outs there, they produce stuff and we buy it because it’s not in season here. A win-win situation.

That won’t be allowed under the new order. No one can advance. No one can become richer unless everyone becomes richer. And how is that meant to happen? It’s simple, it can’t happen. The greatest problem with the re-distributionists is that they have no credible answer to: “what then?” If true to their so-called principles their answer must be that everything is frozen in time or that any profit anyone makes must immediately be taken from them and distributed equally. It is utterly cretinous unless you believe everyone living in squalor would be a better world than some living in comfort and the rest striving to do likewise. I don’t.

I don’t think Germans will appreciate this phrase:
“it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany”

On the other hand I think a lot of people do forget to reward intellectual property and efficiency (in all of its kinds). It is very difficult to evaluate these items.

In the German intellectual scene it is very difficult to be sceptical overall

Ich bin sprachlos… if I remember my high school German. This is actually treason from the point of view of the human race. I’m afraid to say that this “green” angle is sounding suspiciously like communism. After all, communism, through its necessary destruction of the wealth creating potential of an economy, would drastically reduce the human population and C02 output and thereby save the polar bears (sarcasm). It is amazing to me that such an idiotic idea continues to appeal to so many. At any rate, the GFC is only just getting started and the upcoming economic chaos as the bailouts annihilate the US dollar and world trade collapses will be a compelling issue so I doubt these nutjobs will have a willing audience for much longer. Not that this is a good thing, really, simply the eclipsing of a non issue by the most serious to face mankind for a generation.

1991 Founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); since 1993 Director of PIK and Professor for Theoretical Physics at the University of Potsdam.

2001-2005 additional engagement as Research Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Professor at the Environmental Sciences School of the University of East Anglia in Norwich (UK). Distinguished Science Advisor for the Tyndall Centre since 2005.

Carbon cards were first proposed in 2004 by the Tyndall Centre of which Schellnhuber’s links are shown above.

Scientists at UMIST’s Tyndall Centre have devised a system to combat climate change giving each and every adult in the country an equal greenhouse gas ‘allowance’.

Unlike a carbon tax system, where people emit as much carbon dioxide as the amount of fuel plus carbon tax they can afford, each adult would be given a smart card that only allows them to use a certain amount of carbon ‘units’.

Every year the nation’s total number of units would decrease, thus reducing greenhouse gases.

Dr Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UMIST, said: “This is a rationing system that should appeal to the fair minded British public to reduce greenhouse gases.

Dr Anderson explained: “The Domestic Tradable Quotas scheme is designed to meet a legally binding national carbon emissions reduction target. This target is divided into annual carbon budgets that would then be reduced year on year, up to and including the year by which the UK must have achieved
its emission reduction target.

“Each budget is divided into carbon units with, for example, one carbon unit representing 1kg of carbon dioxide. A proportion of these units would be allocated by government, free and on a per capita basis, to each adult citizen. The remaining units would be allocated to firms and organisations through
a government-regulated auction.”

He added: “All fuels and electricity would be assigned a carbon rating based on the quantity of greenhouse gases they emit. When people or companies purchase fuel or electricity, they surrender the number of carbon units corresponding to their purchase back to the government via the retailer and
primary supplier.

“Central to the DTQs scheme is a computer database which holds the carbon unit account for all citizens and companies. All transactions are carried out electronically. For example, a customer buying petrol would have a smart card swiped by the petrol station attendant transferring the carbon units
corresponding to their purchase back to the government.”

Dr Anderson said the system was the best and fairest way of reducing greenhouse gases: “It is an equitable system. It is not based solely on people’s ability and willingness to pay, but an explicit allocation of an equal per capita basis. Of course some people may not use all of their allocation, in
which case, individuals could trade left over units, thereby creating a market in carbon units.

My sister lives in Germany and news are still full about “CO-zwei” doom. Some cities even canceled lights on Christmas tree in city centers in order to reduce “CO-zwei”.
I have read two book from Feynmann (one of them about investigation of Challenger crash) and he was a truly unique person. Pity we do not have such world-known scientist today, I am sure he would lead the skeptics; he was the type who would not care about politicians at all.

I like the juxtaposition of the US fires and the Carbon Budget stories. Let us say we have sorted out the bureaucracy that lets us allocate a carbon allowance to everyone in the world. And then another Australian bush fire happens, or a volcano in Iceland pumps out lots of CO2.

I agree with you, comparison to Nazis are too easily bantered about. In this context I believe Lubos was attempting to demonstrate examples of mob mass delusion/hysteria, but I certainly would agree that alternate examples would be preferable.

The govt recently announced they were planning to ask every person in the UK to register their overseas movements in advance (hotel, dates, destination, etc) ostensibly as a measure against the ‘war on terror’ but in reality so they can check our carbon usage and tax us accordingly.

Two years ago the muich hated HIP ( a document that has to be filled in each time a home is sold) was brought in, amongst which are measures to ensure every home has an energy rating. This will be used for taxation purposes and in addition there have been recent suggestions that private homes will not be allowed to be sold until an appropriate energy rating is gained.

A further tax was put on petrol last week in the name of green ness and the air pasenger duty increased in the same name. We already pay a substantial levy on our energy bills to fund renewables.

A carbon card will bring all these disparate items (and many more) neatly into one easy to monitor format in the name of ‘fairness’ ie rationing.

This is a very unpopular govt so that may delay implementation, although the hysteria about AGW is mounting ahead of the Copenhagen summit and who knows what might be brought in whilst polar bears are being shown dying on our tv screens of human induced warming?

The Conservative opposition try to be even greener than the govt so will undoubtedly press on with some measures, but are greater champions of personal freedom and may stop short of a carbon card, but I wouldn’t bet against it in the medium term of say five years.

It was a Mr Lennin (a socialist) I beleive who said that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And one A. Hitler (another socialist) said that the mass of the people would be more likly to believe a big lie than a small one. Nothing really changes does it? Oh yes the technology changes, the methods change, but mankind stays the same, still in his cave.

Is it just me or have I realised that all these intellectual marxist socialists, actors, actresses, artistic performers of all kinds, environmentalists of all shades, earn their income from the free-enterprise system, or the taxpayers who work in it, who want redistribution of wealth, want other peoples’ wealth to be redistributed, but err, not their own? All the main players come from privilaged & moderately wealthy backgrounds. I recall back in 1997 when New Labour was right up there, the likes of Mick Hucknel (Simply Red), was advocating higher taxes to pay for all the goodies on offer, yet from someone who earns a not so small annual fortune can afford to have his earnings “distributed” out of the taxman’s reach! No, it’s just me then.

Well there’s a whole cultural movement that loosely speaking, likes the idea of the West sharing with the Third World. The idea of sharing is of course very old, and you can find spiritual gurus everywhere preaching that we need to learn to share. But in the West, recently, since about the 60s, the feeling is becoming core to a lot of people. But noble as it is, there’s some massive flaws with the ideal, not just on the material side, but on the psychological side as well.

The biggest flaw, I gather, is that people everywhere are not the same. This is a very simple point, but it is often overlooked in discussions about helping the world. To make the point, there’s some harsh examples we can look at, starting with Iraq. One idea in Iraq was to install a democracy. However, the local culture is quite feudal. Now that’s not a bad thing, feudal cultures organised by clans are a very old institution, and they predate the modern social forms, which in some respects are still so new we could even call them experiments. (Women continue to experiment with their role in a postmodern western society, for example.)

So we go to Iraq and give them ballot boxes and soldiers to keep things safe. What happened? We didn’t change the culture, we didn’t change the people. We may have moved things a little step forward or a little step back, it is hard to say. Why was it so hard? Because the people make the culture and the culture is in the people, and whatever they as individuals value and feel is important, they as individuals and groups will defend with their lives. The Left usually says we need to provide education. Fine, go “educate” Iraq and we’ll hear back from you in 80 years. Social change is very hard and very long. Think about just changing an individual. Can you persuade someone to stop believing in God? Can you stop an alcoholic from drinking? (I don’t mean any judgements about either of these, and would add, can you persuade someone to start believing in God?) The Middle East has a strong religious fabric to their culture, for example, making money from loans is a religious topic, so this affects the economy, it affects everything. Is someone going to go educate them about that?

Education, I gather, can only help people with what they already want, the projects and needs with which they are already invested, and the same goes for a culture as a whole, the lands of the world, the peoples and nations. You can’t impose on people something they don’t want. People themselves can change, as they move through life through the chapters of their own personal story.

On the world stage, we have many in the West invested in a green ideal where the Third World and the Middle East will all be “solved” right now, within their own lifetime. Meanwhile, the people of the Middle East and of various countries in Africa are invested in their own ideals and ways of life.

There is no difference between the West bombing democracy into Iraq, and the West smothering Africa with ‘carbon’ cash. Neither of these get you the result you want, and they create a hell of a mess in the meantime. The people you’re trying to do it to don’t want what you want. India wants to develop fast and get a high standard of living. China wants to do likewise. (I’m guessing, we should ask them). Africa is a step further back, still looking to form some sort of fair nation states beyond tribal strife, with a decent infrastructure and rational worldview that integrates above tribal thinking.

The greens of the West should please just try asking the rest of the world what all these different peoples want.

“Johnny Honda (23:14:52) :
Dudes, I read the website of the magazin “Der Spiegel” everday. You could fill a own blog with their ridicolous stories about climate change. It is a total propaganda newspaper concerning this topic.”

A “Spiegel” is a mirror and, as everybody knows, a mirror shows everything reversed (the English put up with that daily).
A relative of mine worked there long time ago; he remarked that they prove all the prejudices other people have about Germans.

I don’t think Germans will appreciate this phrase:
“it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany”

But actually he is right. If we Germans were really sensible there wouln’t be such a high probability that the same communist party that built up the wall and killed Germans trying to flee the totalitarian regime, could be ruling the country again after the elections in 3 weeks, just 20 years after it’s fall. It’s a shame.

As for “Spiegel Online”, I noticed that you can’t comment on any report ragarding climate. It seems that for them the science is really settled and that no differing opinions are wanted. I guess they are practicing for the change in government..

The other side started with the Nazi business, and I wonder why nobody minds the comparison with communists. But let us leave that to the other side.
But I understand that Eastern Europeans like Motl still know about the time when “das Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “das Volk der Richter und Henker”.
(people of poets and thinkers, judges and executioners)

…have a look at the Logo of the PIK (Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgen Forschung) http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~kropp/accma/gif/pik-logo.gif. wich was founded by Schellnhuber. These guys are well funded (besids others like the government…) by the Münchner Rückversicherung, the largest reasuarance compnany in the world.

One of Schellnhubers top employe and a advisor to the government as well is Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf. He makes a little extra money by selling silver amulets to ban the evil CO2. I’m shure you all know, only a silver bullet can kill the werewolf ;-) http://www.rahmstorf.eu/co2pins/background.htm

At CA Rahmstorf is known as the inventor of the ‘Rahmification’ as Steve McIntyre ‘admired’ it. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6746. In 1999 he cashed in 1 million $ from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. McDonnel, a believer in parapsychology, made his fortune with military aircrafts like the Phantom, Banshee, Damon, Vodoo… if this in ghosts has something to do with the selection of the PIK-logo…I don’t know…

‘Intelligence and stupidity are not opposites, they can quite happily coexist inside the same brain.

Cheers

Mark’

Nicely put Mark!

And never mind politics, highly accomplished scientists and engineers can sometimes have disastrous interpersonal skills, and wreak havoc and misery when they are put in charge of their fellow human beings. We can’t be everything! We are after all a colonial organism, composed of often highly-specialised individuals.

I grew up in a now defunct communist country, and I’m amazed how little has the world learned from this totally failed experience in organizing human societies. Only twenty years after the fall of East-European communist regimes, very little remains for one to see, read, experience from this embarrassing period of human history.

I just hope that with the internet, all those participating in this collective folly of Copenhagen will have a permanent place to be embarrassed about their positions regarding climate change and the need for re-engineering the human society. Look at the ‘Climate Thinkers Blog’ – what an oxymoron!http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/climate+thinkers+blog

Just consider the timeless words of Milton Friedman:

‘We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.

David Cameron is not the man to lead the Conservative Party. He wants Zac Goldsmith to administer Green Ideas [that will surely fail]. They like Wind Power, Solar Panels [In the UK? Are they insane?], hate Nuclear Power [Idiots] and think Carbon Trading is a viable entity!

Why don’t they look at historical records and see that CO2 is neither a poison nor pollutant! Remove CO2 and we die! Geo-engineering? Bah!
The UK is full of wimps. Where is the next man/woman politician that will stand up and tell the truth. Then point the UK in the right direction? Start by banging the French and German politico’s heads together.

Mr. Schellnhuber often gives valuable insights into his state of mind.
Not a long time ago Mr. Schellnhuber asked for a “Cultural Revolution” to deal with climate change. After realizing this term is burned since Mao Tse-Tung, he now calls the same crap “Great transformation” http://www.greattransformation.eu
In June 2009 a conference took place in Germany to answer questions like “How can democracy cope with this climate Stress?”

“Democratic regimes are not well prepared for the level of participation that is required: Can free democratic societies cope with the effects of grave changes in the global climate, or might authoritarien regimes possibly be better placed to enforce the necessary measures?”

Why alternate examples would be preferable ?
Sofar the communism and the national socialism as political systems have been the most efficient population control systems in the history of mankind .
The difference being mostly that the national socialism had a more efficient macro economical management than the communism .

So whenever when the issue is population control and micromanagement of individuals , the communism and the national socialism are both the best systems to analyse in order to see what methods have been used and with what efficiency .
Doing this analysis it appears very clearly what Lubos is saying – the radical environmental philosophies , targets and methods are very similar to what both the communism and national socialism did .
The same causes producing the same effects , people like this Schellnhuber are objectively equivalent (e.g have similar methods and targets) to people like Trotski or Goebbels .
The fact that their philosophy doesn’t base on the “race” or on the “class” concept is irrelevant to the question whether the concrete content of their methods is similar to the methods of other totalitarian systems .
That’s why the example is full in order .

Once somebody says that the “goal sanctifies the means” , he becomes morally equivalent to both communists and national socialists .
Obviously the more the means are inhuman , the more the goals are glorious and appealing .
After all both Hitler and Lenin were promising a bright future full of happiness and peace in some (very) far future .
Unfortunately on the journey to this bright future one had to liquidate plenty of people who didn’t see the wrong on their ways because they were either mentally insane or clearly ennemies of happiness and peace (generally manipulated by some absolute evil X – fill here in your favorite absolute evil like Exxon , plutocracy , capitalists etc) .
The faster they were liquidated the faster the bright future would come .

Ergo : it is your duty to participate actively or passively on the liquidations (not necessarily physical , a removal from the society is less messy and does the same service) because if you don’t , it would be a clear and objective proof that you too don’t want mankind’s happiness .
Logically it is then YOUR liquidation that follows …

[i]”And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset.”[/i]

I have no doubt that is what will be seen in Copenhagen this December also. I tend to consider people like Schellnhuber , Van Jones, etc. as a test, in the same sense as a saint would consider the temptations of a demon a test, and with similar consequences for failure.

Lubos is always a bit controversial and ” over the top”. He is one of those people living in an ex communistic style satellite that can see the danger in the agendas being proposed – and is very forthright in commentating about these dangers.

Hmmm I wonder what the German language translation is for Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

TonyB. Quite frightening what our UK government has or hopefully had in mind. But as you say the Conservatives are equally as greenie-alarmist as Labour. I have ben writing to the Tory Leadership for some time and more recently shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Greg Clark. Utter waste of time. Never is a scientific question referred to let alone answered. One is politely thanked for making contact and is then referred to the Tory white paper The Low Carbon Economy. Of course this just reiterates the need to reduce carbon emissions and takes it from there. In other words ‘the science is settled.’ And all the time we have a cooling period.

There seems to be only one backbencher who is prepared to put his head above the parapet and that is Peter Lilley. But he read physics at University.

It is interesting that people react negatively to any comparison of the AGW delusion with Nazi states or communist states and also religions.

These three are collective delusion societal situations and I know of no other systems of such a type that have dominated such large numbers. There have been mass delusions, like the people dying to catch the tail of a comet, or the african tribe that killed off all its cattle and became extinct, but they involve much smaller numbers of people.

I couldn’t agree more, Tony. Furthermore, I reckon that in future historians will call the twentieth century the time when ordinary people in the Western world gained unprecedented freedom, power and prosperity and the twenty-first century the one where it all got taken away again.

To borrow a fairly recent concept: “Hearts and Minds”. The difficulty is that in order to change someones mind, one must first change their behavior. There are many ways of accomplishing that, thru rational argument, etc., but usually it involves demonstrating to the target population that their current behavior is not conducive to their future well being. Hence the phrase: “Make them an offer they cannot refuse”.

I agree that these unfortunate comparisons do not belong here; but one has to understand that in Eastern Europe the time, when “Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “Richter und Henker” is still very much present.
(people of poet and thinkers, judges and hangmen)

I agree that these unfortunate comparisons do not belong here; but one has to understand that in Eastern Europe the time when “Volk der Dichter und Denker” became “Richter und Henker” is still very much present.
(people of poets and thinkers, judges and hangmen)

“The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

I believe the comparison to Nazi Germany is because it was the highly qualified scientists at the time who gave backing and impetus to the racial purification agenda. It is an example of how far human beings can go because they are still fallen creatures – whereas we tend to assume that being qualified in the sciences makes one objective and maybe even just?

So in this case, it is a very capable physicist who is using his credentials to give impetus to an illogical process which has not yet reached Nazi levels but could none-the-less reek considerable havoc on a world scale.

The only problem with this analysis is to think that it is somehow unique to the Germans. After all, they got their theories on racial purification programs from the American scientific establishment.

What a great comfort it must be to leftists to have a one-size-fits-all answer to any problem that comes up. “The rich nations must send massive amounts of money to the poor countries.” Doesn’t matter what the issue is, that’s the answer. How lucky they are to be spared the necessity of thought by having an answer that always works!

I’ve often wondered what could be done to really help out Africa, and the rest of the undeveloped world. I mean other than getting rid of the nut cases currently running the show.

But assuming one could get a handle on the lack of security in Africa, what would be the first thing to try and get the economy going? Build some power plants? Who would have any use for them, as there are no appliances. Build roads? No cars or trucks.

But what if Africa could be the source of food for the rest of the world? Wouldn’t this spur investment in such things as roads, power plants, schools, etc?

Schellnhuber & Anderson are useful idiots. Even more useful when they start throwing big numbers around and put price tags on warming and how money will be conjured out of thin air. When people see how much this will cost them, they tend to become more sceptical and ask for a higher standard of proof.

But a group of Aftrican nations are ahead with calls for ‘compensation’ to top up existing aid-

Ministers from 10 African countries have met in Ethiopia to try to agree a common position on climate change, months before a crucial UN meeting.

They were expected to renew demands for billions of dollars in compensation for Africa because of damage caused by global warming.
—

Which could be useful, if savvy governments treat the claim as any other compensation claim, ie make a case proving harm or loss and presenting your case in court. Hopefully a higher standard of proof would be required in court than in the media.

But then we don’t have savvy governments, we have governments that can see the revenue potential from arranging auctions of carbon permits & the tax and fine receipts that may follow, along with an expansion of bureaucracy to adminster everything. Plus there’s the green machine that will be advising on how all those billions should be invested in an environmentally friendly way, for a fee or percentage of course.

And most miraculously of all, these billions will be transfered in a carbon neutral way and will not increase consumption CO2 demands or production globally at all! These guys are almost as good at economics as they are at climate science.

As for Feynman, MS has done something vaguely useful and put up some of his lecture videos here-

You see? It is not about reality, not to even mention about science experimental facts , but beliefs born in “esoteric circles”, where politicians are “initiated”, and which they are supposed to follow as a precondition to keep on belonging to that chosen elite. If they stop believing or following their masters´indications they inmediately stop being beneficiaries of people money (taxes).
There is no democratic elections but a “free” choosing among those few, previously designated. Want to test it?, just try to be independent.

I hate to tell you all this, but Schellnhuber is also Chancellor Angela Merkel’s closest advisor on climate issues and policy.
When it comes to the environment, conservative Angela Merkel is just as much of a nutjob as Schellnhuber and Ramstorf. The green kooks and green-media wield a tremendous amount of power here in Germany. The reult is high unemployment and overregulation.

And this is why you hear not educated people saying: “If they, scientists and almost sages, say that there is ´global warming/climate change´ it is because IT IS TRUE OR MUST BE TRUE”
How do you call that?

Michael,
“rather dumb comparison”
Personally, I don’t think Lubos is at all exaggerating. One respectable politcian here once called the green movement here “eco-stalinism”. The greens are know as watermelons here; green on the outside, but completely red inside.

I would suggest to make something like a list of simple scientific facts which oppose to the global warming/climate change mantra. As:
“Air does not keep warm as water, so atmosphere can not heat up indifinetely”
“Earth it is not within a closed glass box, it is open to space, so it cools off”
“Greenhouse is a closed room, it doesn´t work if open as our world”,etc.

It’s Cap&Trade on a consumer level and it will promote Global Governance with ultimate powers.
Not the wimpy political power where the kinds like Obama face embarrassment the moment their stature and smooth talk prove insufficient to push through Agenda’s of Change but real raw power. The power of Total Control. The kind of power that allows you to determine what and how much you can eat, when and how long you can use your crap house, the type of toilet paper and the number of sheets to wipe your ass, the amount of water to flush it and the type of light bulb you can use.

This is Marxism Unlimited.
An ideology based on semi science and propaganda.
The perfect rewrite of Animal Farm.

I personally regard the current (freak show) development as a huge threat to humanity and individual freedom and we should fight it for the same reasons we have engaged in the Second World War and the Cold War.

Keep calling those Senators, send them a copy of Luboš’s article and ask them if they endorse or compromise on the Climate Bill of the “Loons” who intend to halt human civilization and become a “Loon” themselves or reject the AGW Hoax and join those who celebrate the benefits of our carbon economy that allows us to live in freedom and prosperity.

And if you have the chance, the time and the resources, join the March of 12 September to make clear that we don’t like the current Government policies.

My German cousins have a positively frightening aptitude for staff work and organisation, something I’ve always admired (from a historical perspective).
However when they get a ‘bee’ in their collective ‘bonnets’, I shift uneasily in my seat.
Frau Merkel was an East German physicist and became a member of ‘Agitprop’, so the Lady knows all about feeding folk a line, I feel her governments’ hand in all of this – (no surprise there!).

I am uneasy about ‘Altruistic saving the world from AGW BS’ and especially when it starts to become state sponsored. Potsdam is famous for another stitch-up, one unfortunately unavoidable for war weary allies.

Now the teutonic roar is heard again, and under the yoke of EU diktat, we shall be made to Harken. Reading books by Solzhenitsyn made me wonder just what life was like under the communists…… and harsh reality beckons.

I just have to vent a bit at the Feynmann book. The guy still misses the point completely. The reason we have more stuff in the US is not because of machinery although that was a step.

Not- developing countries also have machinery. Europe has machinery, China has machinery, Cuba and Venezuela have machinery, CALIFORNIA has machinery. The reason we have more stuff in the US is that the US doesn’t (didn’t use to) have severe government oppression of people. The people made the damn machinery. They did it so they could make money. They did it because nobody came to their houses and told them they couldn’t put a factory on their land, nobody said you need to get a permit from the local politician. Nobody told the Wright brothers they couldn’t fly their planes because it might be unsafe or the engine might make pollution. Now the idiots are even going after lawn mowers.

The absurdity of the “everyone must have the same” argument is illustrated by the essential follow-up question: “what then?”
Although your poker-game scenario is colorful and cute, the answer to that is that the government will sanction the game. You’re assuming you’d be allowed to play freely, as you can today. But under the government controlled system, every activity is “brokered” to a tie (amongst the non-ruling class), and a “win” for the ruling class.

Perhaps Dr Schleinuber and his staff could compute thier portion of the CO2 conentrations(use of supercomputers, heating, autos, mail transport, staff, food, transportion to conferences, subsidized vacations, communications, subsidized benefits, etc…). The government then can deduct the amount of money from thier budgets and transfer that amount to some under developed nation. I’m not a betting man, but I can imagine that the Max Plank Institute would have to close down for several months and all of the employees would be on unpaid furlough (giving the employees subsidized benefits would just allow them to use more CO2). Dr Schlienuber and his staff could spend thier unemplyed time working as indentured servants in say Bangledesh.

Johnny Honda (23:14:52) :That’s why whole Germany is filled with this ugly windmills and solar panels. Literally billions of Euros are wasted with this.
…and were frozen by a real lack of natural gas, last winter, when russians, just to let them know who is in command, shut the pipe off.

“I grew up in a now defunct communist country, and I’m amazed how little has the world learned from this totally failed experience in organizing human societies.”

Yes, history repeats itself. Who would have thought that the US would get themselves into a new Vietnam? I am sure that the inevitable comparisons were mentioned beforehand, but they must have convinced themselves that this time it was “different”. In the same way, Western leaders are obviously using similar techniques to brainwash each other that this time the statist/command economy is different.

And I’m sure, that when the German army march into Poland next time, it will be for the “best of intentions”.

The solution? Vote your current government out of office! That’s what I plan to do here in the US in 2010 …

The problem in voting them out is that someone else comes in. All the major UK parties are busy trying to “out green” each other. Kiss a baby, kiss a green.

Strange really in that you may have thought that the conservatives at least would recognize “green” for what it is. Where do they think the hard left in the UK went after the collapse of the USSR? Recognised the error of their ways and all re-trained as chefs?

This is the sort of garbage they are bowing to in order to appear greener (sick bags at the ready)…

The problem with the author “playing the nazi card” here isn’t just the comparison per se, but the ill-founded claim that this is something uniquely German. After all, who are the priests bringing the AGW theory out of the realms of science and into a mass hysteria? It’s the americans mr. Gore and mr. Hansen!
And comparing to stalinism or nazism is not really valid until agw-ists start to argue that /murder/ is a necessary means to the end. Until then, I suggest that those who want a serious and scientifically sound discourse resort from Reductio ad Hitlerum and leave that to mr. Gore (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/07/gore-and-nazis/) and mr. Hansen (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/hansen-on-death-trains-and-coal-and-co2/).

What we are dealing with here (Schellnhuber) is the elevation of a very narrowly educated physicist to a position of influence. It has little to do with national socialism or communism except that in those regimes, propaganda was the order of the day and no critical thinking tolerated – it is to this latter issue that our intellect would be better directed. Schellnhuber is much more than a scientist – he is a career administrator – moving from one institute to the next, and is chosen for those positions because of those skills, not his ability to master complex social, political and natural ecologies.

The world is full of such people – except today, they tend to be scientists. It was on this WUWT site that I first heard of Eisenhower’s additional warning to the threat of the military industrial complex to dictate foreign policy – that scientists would also begin to direct policy – as is now the case with a climate policy that affects almost every area of the economy, lifestyle and natural environment. It is not Obama’s climate bill – he is a lawyer and knows little other than how to present arguments – it comes from the policy people like Holdren (feted over here as a leading climate scientist – he is nothing of the kind – he is another career administrator and from a narrow physical/technology background). In the UK, we have had numerous ‘chief’ scientific advisors with extremely narrow educations (chemists, for example) arguing policies way beyond their comprehension with regard to their social and economic and even environmental impact.

These people are NOT idiots – they are intelligent and well-meaning, but exceptionally naive and uninformed. Sadly, because they are so narrow, they are averse to critical discussion – and this is where any comparison with ideologues such as Marxists, is valid – they repeat their mantras such as ‘settled science’ and ‘no proven solar influence’ without actually knowing the science. Schellnhuber edited a volume of climate science (and chaired the conference) of a major international review here in the UK commissioned by Tony Blair (I reviewed it in ECOS, the journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists – reference not to hand, but if people google and email, I am sure the editor will provide a file) – in that volume were 52 papers – not ONE made any reference to the work of Henrik Svensmark and the Danish school of thinking on solar-climate interactions whose papers are in the peer-reviewed journals of Solar and Terrestrial Physics (among others) and in conference proceedings of the European Space Agency.

It is this process of exclusion and narrow thinking that underpins the current carbon madness.

The danger is that this institutional failure COMBINES with something much deeper and psychological and which should not be dismissed – the yearning among many millions of Europeans (and I would expect a good few million Americans) to do something effective to correct the huge imbalance of wellbeing in what used to be called the First World and the Third World (largely Africa and South America) – the Second World was never clearly defined but we might use the term BRICs – countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China that have enough resources, capital and schooling to reach for the same living standard as the First World. The Third World has little to play with – except to sell forests and minerals, or recently, food/biofuel acreage to soveriegn funds of China and the Middle East (1.5 million acres of Madagascar bought by China so far!).

There is an underlying sense of GUILT among many First World intelligent people and this can be and is being manipulated – albeit unconsciously (at present) by the legions of administrators, accountants, brokers, auditors, and lobbyists – all of whom probably share the guilt. This blinds them not only to the realities of climate change, it blinds them to their own self-interest in pushing the agenda (i.e. their career interest).

Its a complex and NEW phenomenon for which we do not yet have all the right words – using the old categories will not help and may simply cause offence and even further closure of discussion.

In all of this carbon-sharing, the glaring fact that the ‘West’ not only emits most of the carbon, but also makes most of the goods that the other worlds want to buy, is seldom admitted by the lobbyists. The USA became the bete noire for 25% of emissions, but nobody points out it produces 25% of tradeable goods, and that the rest of the world depends upon a sound US economy. China will soon have this unenviable leading position.

What narrrowly educated scientists like Schellnhuber can’t see is that there really is little point in curtailing carbon allowances in the West and giving them to the Third World (the Second World has already made a grab and is unlikely to limit itself) – because the Third World does not have the technological history embedded in the West to make the goods.

This mismatch also demands the other side of the Schellnhuber blindspot – the denial of reality with regard to renewable energy sources fuelling the Western world’s production of goods as they limit their own carbon – they can’t – the figures don’t add up (nor can nuclear power make them add up).

So – what is the answer? Renewables – properly integrated and with environmental safeguards, might reach 20% of current supply but can’t go beyond because of both environmental and cost constraints – and western governments need to stop being in denial of this. I am no fan of nuclear power – having studied in detail and published papers on the social and environmental costs of a major aerial release (as at Chernobyl) – and ALL reactors are fallible. Fusion is a quasi-religious scientific pipe-dream (I first heard this from my doctoral level Oxford colleague when he left the Culham research centre to work with our group). We all need to get real. Nobody is going to cut demand significantly – it is too bound up with economic growth. Only higher prices cut demand and no government will introduce significant carbon taxation – they prefer ‘trading’ because it lets industry off the hook now (the tightening that is promised will never come) and the brokers and bankers love it (our UK government has a high tax-take from this kind of activity) – broker pays $2 per tonne for a credit from a Phillipino pig farmer who installs a methane digester, sells it to a bank for $10, bank sells it to industry for $15 (industry avoids $50-100/tonne abatement costs) and the consumer gets the final bill (including tax hike to fund government subsidies).

Look to Denmark for the future. It has 20% renewable supply and electricity costs 300% of that in the UK (including 50% government tax). Danes have the one of the highest GDPs in the West, a small educated population and no fuel-poverty underclass (people who pay more than 10% of their income for keeping warm) and so can afford this. In the UK, 30% receive some kind of government income support, and fuel poverty is a desperate issue affecting 20% of households.

The future is HIGH cost and falling demand, with a real potential to limit economic growth and create major social unrest. It is how we manage this that will determine our own wellbeing and our humanity with regard to the Third World – which will be hit harder by the high costs, but might adapt more readily.

In a future where energy demand is 50% less in the West – I have no idea what kind of political economy will evolve under these circumstances or how long that will take – carbon emissions take care of themselves – high cost limits them – and China takes the economic lead because of its command economy and huge coal reserves. Global emissions will probably peak as the Western economies falter, but be maintained by China and India’s burgeoning economies. The Copenhagen meeting is unlikely to agree limits for those economies.

Only when this rather dystopian but essentially very probable future reality is admitted and not denied, will we begin to get beyond the naive carbon-scary-climate story –

Not to worry. Somewhere around this site I read that with furthur industrialization China and India will go into “spontaneous decarbonization”.
How this works is not too clear to me but it appears to be a political reality.
Here in British Columbia, Canada we have lots of trees, actually lots and lots of trees. Some bright buisness people have discovered a ingenious way to develop carbon credits. They buy land with scrub trees, Alder and Maple. They remove the trees and sell the wood. They then plant coniferous trees, generating carbon credits based on future carbon sequesteration. They then sell the carbon credits to airline passengers who wish to be seen to off-set their air travel carbon emissions.
Our provincial government needs to look at this revenue generating mechanism to off-set the current budget deficit as the government owns lots and lots of trees..

“When hysteria reaches a peak it collapses and catharsis follows although traces of the hysteria continue to rumble away for many years. I judge CO2 and AGW hysteria is coming to a peak and will quite suddenly go out of fashion. ”

No chance. This is a battle for control of resources and population control and they’re not going to give in until someone gets shot, there’s massive regular protest against the rise of Marxism or someone gets caught on tape privately saying things Stalin would be proud to say. Van Jones is just the gravy on this dish.

My mother finished her masters at 70. She’s still plugging along and talking about her PhD at 79, but I know she’ll never do it because she has no time – she’s having too much fun (spending our inheritance, but hey, so would I!).

Apparently those of her age are increasing their life expectancy by a year every year they live. That means we don’t know how long they will live, but they are doing very well indeed. Anything to do with the wealth (and medical treatment) created by burning all those evil fossil fuels? I think so….

“Nogw (07:41:26) :
Rest assure that Putin has enough intelligence to shut the gas pipe to germany the next winter also….Get warm with your windmills germans!”

Why do you think the Russians have so much to gain from this CO2 hysteria? Their paid for lackeys in the EU bend over backwards for their Russian paymasters. Oleg Deripaska, a gangster who is banned from entering the US, was one of the authors of European climate regulation because if countries like Poland, Germany and Britain stop using coal they’ll have to start using more Russian oil and gas, and that means sucking on the Kremlin’s teet.

Let’s do a simple back-of-the-envelope exercise: The average world life expectancy is 65 years. Herr Schellnhuber is 59 years old. So his personal CO2 quota from simply breathing is within ten per of hitting its limit. What are his plans for continued respiration when it becomes someone else’s turn six years from now?

*******************
Michael (01:25:56) :
But one thing in Motl’s blog that I strongly object to is his rather dumb comparism of Schellnhuber’s mindless ramblings to the rise of the Nazis.
*****************
He wasn’t comparing those. He was making the point that the MECHANISM of rise of Schellnhuber and the “Green” movement to power can be attributed to the same sort of social mechanism that enabled the rise of Nazism.

*******************
Michael (01:25:56) :
But one thing in Motl’s blog that I strongly object to is his rather dumb comparism of Schellnhuber’s mindless ramblings to the rise of the Nazis.
*********************
He wasn’t comparing those. His point was that the MECHANISM that has propelled Schellnhuber and the “green” movement to power was the same social mechanism that did the same for Nazism.

Dear all
until today I thought this to be a interesting climate blog. Those of you sitting comfortably in front of your notebooks,drinking lots of beer and swaggering in half phrases on German history please notice: You may damage your scientific credibility by absurd statements on other subjects.

“..There is no difference between the West bombing democracy into Iraq, and the West smothering Africa with ‘carbon’ cash. Neither of these get you the result you want, and they create a hell of a mess in the meantime. The people you’re trying to do it to don’t want what you want…

The greens of the West should please just try asking the rest of the world what all these different peoples want…”
Stefan

A problem with asking is that a typical third-world country (hey, ANY country) will reply ‘Yes Please’ to any attempt to give them carbon cash. Or any other cash. And similarly, they would say ‘Yes Please’ to any offer to bomb, so long as they could define the target as their internal enemies.

Those scientists who are sincere and well-meaning would, in the best case, be advocating a “tyranny of the model”. Simply raising the price of carbon is not precise or fair enough, but modeling everyone’s significant carbon footprint is a fair and scientific way to achieve particular CO2 reduction goals. Using a model, the biggest uses of carbon: staying warm, staying cool, and transportation will be highly weighted. Perhaps these could be offset by moving to a high density dwelling or allowing the outside regulation of the thermostat. Obviously a long solo commute by car would be penalized. Using small electric fans in the summer, instead of cooling the whole house, would be rewarded and subsidized.

Other discretionary uses will have their weights bumped up in the recognition that a certain amount of staying warm is not optional. Therefore one would be penalized for buying imported goods made and shipped using extra energy if those goods are determined to be discretionary and not long-lasting. Those purchases could however be offset with the right kinds of alms to the poor countries who have been denied the same optional luxuries (the model would probably have some political correctness or bourgeois guilt programmed in).

Growing some trees on a small acreage might qualify. Burning wood to stay warm (an unbeatable level of comfort IMO) would require about 10 acres to stay even with proper harvesting and planting. Eating local food would help along with high density transported food (e.g. fresh imported fruit would be bad, but dried imported fruit would be better). Keeping an old car running would almost certainly produce more carbon credit than destroying the old car and having a new one built (at least that might eliminate some political rent seeking and outright stupidity).

What are the drawbacks of such a tyranny? The most basic one is that an automated tyranny could ultimately be far more damaging than a human-based tyranny. Also scientists may cheat for their own benefit or more likely for a perceived general benefit. But an honest model would show that no polar bears or low lying countries will be saved with a typical carbon sacrifice. The reality of zero benefits for nonzero sacrifice would ultimately prevail.

***********
Eric (skeptic) (09:22:09) :
Those scientists who are sincere and well-meaning would, in the best case, be advocating a “tyranny of the model”.
************
How about this model? We get rid of government regulation in the US and ignore the UN completely. We have targeted regulation of nuclear, but not enough to discourage it or make it more expensive than truly necessary to be safe. We allow private enterprise to determine what energy we use and allow people freedom to use as much or as little as they please. I think that would work for the best.

“The future is HIGH cost and falling demand, with a real potential to limit economic growth and create major social unrest.”

OOh, you ARE a pessimist, aren’t you. I’m only glad you’re not a political leader. My take on the AGW thing is that it’s taken a scientific curiosity (CO2 is an IR absorber) and hyped it way above what is commensurate with science, history or experience. There is no reason for HIGH future energy costs except if in our hysteria to “do something” we make them so.

“Fusion is a quasi-religious scientific pipe-dream (I first heard this from my doctoral level Oxford colleague when he left the Culham research centre to work with our group). ”

But fusion works. You only have to look up into the sky. The fact that Tokamaks don’t work is a separate issue. As a leading researcher (Kroeller I think) said, “We spent $15 billion dollars on Tokamaks and one thing we learned is that they’re no damn good!”

“How about this model? We get rid of government regulation in the US and ignore the UN completely. We have targeted regulation of nuclear, but not enough to discourage it or make it more expensive than truly necessary to be safe. We allow private enterprise to determine what energy we use and allow people freedom to use as much or as little as they please. I think that would work for the best.”

This type of misguided thinking would require that we honor the constitution of the USA… Surely you don’t think it would require such drastic measures?

“But one thing in Motl’s blog that I strongly object to is his rather dumb comparism of Schellnhuber’s mindless ramblings to the rise of the Nazis.”

The Germans used to be war-like and mean
But that couldn’t happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918.
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.
-Tom Lehrer (American songwriter)

“All political power comes from the barrel of a rifle” -Chairman Mao

I think that the mention of Nazis is quite appropriate. All countries are at risk of going collectively insane and massacring millions of “undesirables.” Just look at your history books. It has happened before, it is happening now (think Zimbabwe), and it will happen again.

The only way you can possibly enforce global equality is at gunpoint. So who gets to point the guns, and who are the “pointees?”

I know… The Germans are very efficient, lets give them the job of forcing carbon equality on the world and bringing about worldwide peace and prosperity. The rest of us can quietly lay down our arms and march proudly toward the Utopian 4th Reich. Remember, if everyone is totally equal there will be no more envy and no more war. The Enforcers, will of course, will need to be slightly more equal so that they can do their jobs and keep us all safe.
/sarc off

Ron de Haan (09:11:37) : In the link you gave, among the catastrophic menaces,
the “pandemic” one is mentioned.
BTW and to ruin business to those engaged in the last UN’s WHO invented pandemics, the AH1N1 virus, here you can find that antiviral “Tamiflu” it is nothing else but an extract of Star Anise, which you can find anywhere:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_anise

“Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world’s population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world. It would, however, have to be ensured that the poorer nations use the money for the proposes it is intended — namely to help them to develop a greener economy.” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

I propose a different solution: Stick the good Mr. Schellnhuber in the nuthouse and save the $142 billion.

Peter Stroud (04:38:28) :
I have been doing the same with the same response and in my last message, (the German scientist letter to Merkel), I asked that his PA not send me any more copies of their FoE-written energy policy). I did get a surprising response from Letwyn who said he found it very interesting. He is on their policy committee.

Scellnhuber is very popular within the network: 01/11/2004
Tyndall Centre Director receives CBE (Tyndall Press Archive)

Professor John Schellnhuber, a Director of both the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, has been awarded an honorary CBE in recognition of his key contribution to climate change science and to UK and German co-operation.

Professor Schellnhuber will be congratulated on his award when he meets Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II when she opens the major British-German climate change conference ‘Climate change: Meeting the challenge together’ at the British Embassy in Berlin on 3 November, 2005.

“John’s dual role as Research Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Potsdam Institute has created a unique working relationship between our two institutes” says Prof. Chris Vincent, Head of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, home to the Tyndall Centre’s headquarters.

Cross-fertilization is common:
June 15, 2005 John Schellnhuber elected to the US National Academy of Sciences (Max Planck Press release)

Professor Hans Joachim (“John”) Schellnhuber, external scientific member of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Scientific Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, was recently elected to the US National Academy of Sciences as foreign associate. The National Academy of Sciences is one of the leading science academies in the world.

Here’s another example of the close links between Potsdam, Schnellnhuber and East Anglia University, home of Climate Research Institute, (Phil Jones et al) and the Tyndall Centre.

Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system
“Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change,“ the researchers around Timothy Lenton from the British University of East Anglia in Norwich and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research report. Global change may appear to be a slow and gradual process on human scales. However, in some regions anthropogenic forcing on the climate system could kick start abrupt and potentially irreversible changes. For these sub-systems of the Earth system the researchers introduce the term “tipping element”.

Drawing on a workshop of 36 leading climate scientists in October 2005 at the British Embassy, Berlin, Germany, a further elicitation of 52 experts in the field, and a review of the pertinent literature, the authors compiled a short-list of nine potential tipping elements. These tipping elements are ranked as the most policy-relevant and require consideration in international climate politics.

Feynman’s revulsion for pompous fools would make a good Quote of the Week. But IMHO he understated the situation.

The Science Establishment and humanity on the whole have slipped into intellectual decline. There has been little scientific advancement in any field for 50 years, with the possible exceptions of microbiology and semiconductors.

The entire world seems to have gone mad, or stupid. Quack religions have supplanted true rational inquiry, and stultification of thought has engendered many tragic consequences. AGW and fascist non-solutions to a non-problem are but one example. What is less clear is how to break this downward spiral.

We live in interesting times. We are witness to the decline and fall of civilization and the headlong rush into the New Dark Ages. Mass hysteria, superstition, quackery, self-inflicted disasters, worldwide infanticide, genocide, and hemoclysms are the hallmarks of the modern era. Humanity descends and devolves right before our eyes.

“Mr. Schellnhuber often gives valuable insights into his state of mind.
Not a long time ago Mr. Schellnhuber asked for a “Cultural Revolution” to deal with climate change. After realizing this term is burned since Mao Tse-Tung, he now calls the same crap “Great transformation” http://www.greattransformation.eu
In June 2009 a conference took place in Germany to answer questions like “How can democracy cope with this climate Stress?”

“Democratic regimes are not well prepared for the level of participation that is required: Can free democratic societies cope with the effects of grave changes in the global climate, or might authoritarien regimes possibly be better placed to enforce the necessary measures?””

Right, and there are still people like Reinhard Bösch (09:06:09) who believe this is not a serious topic.

Ron de Haan (10:44:02) : I think americans have much more simple and fast methods to end all this global non sense, beginning with their holy prophets and messiahs. I think some far west methods will work.

Enduser
“I know… The Germans are very efficient…”
I’d say they are very good organisers.
But that’s precisely what makes them a threat to society.

And when you get someone with off-the-wall ideas like Schellnhuber near the top, I start to worry.
Schellnhuber and that hothead Ramstorf make van Jones look like a child playing in the sandbox. These guys are dangerous in my view.

“Ron de Haan (09:11:37) : In the link you gave, among the catastrophic menaces,
the “pandemic” one is mentioned.
BTW and to ruin business to those engaged in the last UN’s WHO invented pandemics, the AH1N1 virus, here you can find that antiviral “Tamiflu” it is nothing else but an extract of Star Anise, which you can find anywhere:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_anise”

I got here late and I’m sure that the old chestnut of the North robbing the south has been dealt with. Any continent is loaded with resources and under democratic governments and free enterprise, these resources are converted to weath which leads to…. well you get the picture. We have not robbed the wealth of the south. It is not a zero-sum game. Indeed, the north has brought medicine and no-how to the south. Imagine we northerners suing Rome because the Romans “exploited” us. This is how we got our start.

According to the OECD (I don’t have a link but I read this recently) we have officially (government to government called ODA – official devel. assist.) given about $3 trillion away in the last 40 years. This does not count NGO’s, private philanthropy, loans that are unlikely to be paid back, etc. There are a slew of scholarly studies and articles saying economic aid (as apart from disaster assistance) doesn’t work and indeed many state that it harms African economies, promotes corruption (over 40 years ago I bought rice in a market place in Nigeria that came from a cardboard drum labeled ” A gift to the people of Nigeria from Oxfam”). In our cities we are advised by authorities not to hand out cash to homeless people because they use it for drugs and alcohol – even our own local aid is harmful to the recipient. Now we have another scheme to “compensate” for our exploitation of the South”. Such a grand scale handout may kill off the South. I’m sorry about lack of links but try googling ODA OECD.
I have one for aid is bad:http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/against.cfm

re: Reinhard Bosch: “until today I thought this to be a interesting climate blog.”

Well, who is it that is politicizing science these days, Reinhard? Is it not the Climate Advisor to Angela Merkel who is quoted above saying, “The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world.”? This relates to science how, exactly?

As several have pointed out, Schellnhuber’s point of view betrays a common and fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is created. Poor nations are poor not because freer nations have made them so. Poor nations have been poor since long before the rise of the west, and have mostly remained so despite vast amounts of transferred wealth over the past couple of generations. People will remain poor in places where they are not free. Transferred wealth will mainly enrich the governing elite, and further corrupt already corrupt systems. Homegrown wealth is the answer, produced by a liberated citizenry, whose basics rights and freedoms are respected and protected by their government, which will necessarily be limited and representative in nature. Unlimited government is incompatible with basic individual freedoms.

Among these fundamental individual freedoms are the freedom to own property without fear of arbitrary seizure, freedom to sell one’s intellectual property without fear that it will be appropriated by others or by the government, and the freedom to contract with others for use of one’s physical or intellectual labor, property, or capital.

Human beings are by nature industrious, energetic, clever, and ambitious problem solvers. Given the freedom to do so, they will achieve solutions to most problems, including the problem of how best to produce the most energy at the least cost and with the least impact on the environment. They will produce enough wealth to provide not only for themselves but to try to help others less free, and therefore less productive.

We all know the UN is behind the AGW/Climate Change Scare, right?
And that their aim is Global Governance, right?
So, they honor a Marxist dictator so we know what we’re up against, right?
And now you think I am I am nuts, right?

Ron de Haan (13:50:03) :I am glad that this corrupt organization is digging it’s own grave.
…Or perhaps they feel now in a winning position having taken the most importants governments in the world.
That UN building is out of place in NY.

If you think you have it bad just look at our British government. We have an unelected prime minister surrounded by Marxists. Peter Mandelson is a Marxist who is also a close friend of Russian oligarch and organised criminal Oleg Deripaska who helped draft European climate regulation. Then there is David Milliband, son of a Marxist lecturer. Just like a Marxist elitist he created a government position so that his brother Ed could have a job as Climate Change Secretary in this unelected government. Then there is Secretary of State for Environment Hillary Benn, son of the infamous Marxist Tony Benn who has protested against the liberation of Iraq alongside members of the banned terrorist group al-Muhajiroun and visited Saddam before his downfall. Then we have our dear Zoologist Marxist George Monbiot who co-founded the Respect Party (Britain’s first radical Marxist-Islamist alliance) with George Galloway, the closet Islamist who was a dear friend of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Then we have Ken Livingstone, the Marxist ex-Mayor of London who made life expensive for Londoners and then had the gall to invite Hugo Chavez to London to celebrate the spread of global Socialism.

You Americans keep the fight up. Your liberty means a lot to all of us. Without you freedom collapses like a domino effect and totalitarianism will rise again everywhere. One day we’ll need you again.

I can imagine no place having less to play with than Hong Kong did in 1950 or so, but they instituted reasonably limited government (for whatever reason) and enforced contracts, and, well, the rest of the story is history.

Perhaps there are places with nothing at all to play with, but in most cases people are held back by culture and ideology alone.

“Ron de Haan (13:50:03) :
I am glad that this corrupt organization is digging it’s own grave.
…Or perhaps they feel now in a winning position having taken the most importants governments in the world.
That UN building is out of place in NY.”

That building is exactly in the right place.
Americans simply don’t dig communists and they certainly won’t accept the schemes the UN is up to.
Give it some time.

Dennis A:
…Cross-fertilization is common:
June 15, 2005 John Schellnhuber elected to the US National Academy of Sciences (Max Planck Press release)

Feynman I am pretty certain refused induction into the NAS because he couldn’t stand to be a member of an orginization whose only visible effort was to discuss which other people were august enough to join.

Perhaps there are places with nothing at all to play with, but in most cases people are held back by culture and ideology alone.
************************
Some are also held back by bloody dictators. I guess that might count as “culture.”

All the wealth in the world is called by economists M3, it amounts to 60 trillion dollars. Divide it equally among the worlds population and we’re all worth $9,000. As to the greens not practising humanity-cide. Please go to green-agenda. com and disabuse yourselves.

“son of the infamous Marxist Tony Benn who has protested against the liberation of Iraq.”

“Infamous?” Your arguments are discredited by your own predjudice. I also believe we should not have gone into Iraq. And were the million British citizens who protested in Trafalger square also “infamous Marxists?” What business is it of ours to “liberate” another country. Forgive me, but isn’t even the word “liberate” a euphemism for “conquer?” Why don’t we “liberate” Zimbabwe or Burma for that matter?

Tony Benn is actually one of the more sensible people regarding AGW. I once remember a couple of years ago Benn was on the “Any questions” radio talk show. A member of the audience asked a question about man made global warming and why we aren’t doing more to stop it. All the panel members gave the predictable PC comments, except for Benn. He was the only respondent to mention that the science is not settled. He actually said “there’re a number of very serious scientists who do not beleive that man made greenhouse gases are significantly warming the planet.”

Dodgy Geezer (09:07:50) :
“The greens of the West should please just try asking the rest of the world what all these different peoples want…” — Stefan

A problem with asking is that a typical third-world country (hey, ANY country) will reply ‘Yes Please’ to any attempt to give them carbon cash. Or any other cash. And similarly, they would say ‘Yes Please’ to any offer to bomb, so long as they could define the target as their internal enemies.

What people want and what they need are two different things…

Very true… I don’t know how it could work in practice. At least if the greens could begin by questioning their own assumption that they know what’s best for the world… maybe this is how they get round having to question themselves… merely by offering African countries money, Africans are going to “agree” with the greens. I see now that’s how it works? Greens are looking to buy supporters?

“Vincent (01:23:57) :
Aron,
What business is it of ours to “liberate” another country. ”

As a libertarian I don’t think we should be meddling in another country’s affairs, but as a friend to many Kurds over the years I can’t argue against their pleasure of being liberated. We really had no choice. Saddam was going to die sooner or later and his regime would have imploded because he had nobody to take over (forget his sons). In the power vacuum that was going to occur, the Kurds would have attempted to liberate themselves which would have triggered off a conflict with the Turks, which then would bring in the Iranians (who would offer support to the Kurds) and then the Syrians. The place was going to erupt between neighbouring countries, divided Iraqi generals, sectarian strife and Islamist actions. Forget about the violence we have seen. It’s nothing compared to what would have happened and then we would have had a war like we haven’t seen for over half a century. We had no choice but to prevent the worst case scenario.

The question is, how come the Left doesn’t mind us taking expensive actions (including selling our liberties) against a climate change hysteria based on bad science but no expensive action against a definite violent scenario that would have engulfed a large portion of the world?

As for Tony Benn, I am glad to hear that he said the science is not settled but his son doesn’t seem to agree and he’s the one in government.

Reply: Let’s try and avoid spinning off into political tangents such as these. ~ ctm

and why does he think people will pay this? Screw him! Atlas has shrugged!

Oh and of course I forgot this,
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

and why does he think people will pay this? Atlas has shrugged! Screw him and his little dog too!

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”